If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You may have to Register
before you can view/post in certain forums, we also restrict registered users from some forums
Upgrading your account and thus helping with the bounce server funds will solve this, our Private Members and Monthly Donators have FULL access to every part of the site.

I've never been a fan of the 'fans on the Board' because of the inevitability that things like this would happen.
Just as MPs and MSPs (for example) represent their constituents, sometimes they will vote against the wishes of those who put them there. Support for capital punishment for example will never be given by the reps even if the constituency is firmly in favour.

It's also pretty rare for 'votes' to be taken on Boards in the main. It's usually debate and consensus, with Board members then taking corporate responsibility - or if they can't - resigning.
It appears from the little we know that Frank and Tracey more than likely would have known the majority of Hibs fans wanted action not inaction, and no doubt expressed that view as our reps. They were then persuaded by legal advice and 'other information or argument' that it was not in the best interests of Hibs to pursue it. Their legal obligation as directors is to act in the best interest of THE CLUB and if that contradicts our view then that's that really.

So, in a nutshell - Frank and Tracey took the consensus view and (maybe reluctantly - who knows?) have to accept responsibility for it.

I agree that they have not taken the fans view (poll or no poll) on board, they have reacted to the information presented to them. Without knowing what it was, I can't say if it was pragmatic or not.

What I'm pretty clear about is that neither of them were co-erced, manipulated, bribed or threatened by the Ogre Petrie - and neither did the Board make them 'Patsies' or 'hang them out to dry'. The Board gave a 'unanimous view' because that's what strong Boards do. Had it been otherwise, then I agree Tracey and Frank would have to stand down - that's in my experience of corporate governance anyway.

And finally......................... you are spot on about how the role should have been clearly defined and explained. It's difficult to lay out a template that references when supporters should be consulted, but perhaps this was a bit of a glaring example of just such an instance.

Oh aye, and finally finally.......... we should remember where the blame really lies. Folk like Campbell Ogilvie, Gordon Smith, Stewart Regan are the ones we rightly blame.
Frank and Tracey not so much.

Bugger................ one last point.............. I don't know if they have indeed been 'gagged' or whether they have just decided themselves to bugger off for a while, but the communication - or lack of it - has made a difficult situation disastrous.

For me, Shrink, I realise that there won't be a vote very often but when there is one then the Reps must vote for the supporters (majority). They may personally be persuaded by other board members to their point of view but they cannot vote unless it is to vote for us. I am beginning to think that the whole idea is a wee bit patronising and not meant to give us as strong a voice as it first appeared. Not gonna put my head in the oven just yet but ,may need a hug soon.

For me, Shrink, I realise that there won't be a vote very often but when there is one then the Reps must vote for the supporters (majority). They may personally be persuaded by other board members to their point of view but they cannot vote unless it is to vote for us. I am beginning to think that the whole idea is a wee bit patronising and not meant to give us as strong a voice as it first appeared. Not gonna put my head in the oven just yet but ,may need a hug soon.

Send me your pic first, no hug commitment should be inferred from this post.

That’s the issue. You can’t really punish the Scottish football authorities without punishing your own club, and the blazers are only too aware of that fact. People have motional, familial and personal ties to their football teams and won’t abandon them without a strong reason.

We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t; and Hibs, as a club, know full well that it has die-hards who will go no matter what.

Meh, I think it is. A poll is only a subsample of opinion from a certain group, or groups. The poll on here was, therefore, instructive enough of wider opinion because, I think, 90% of responders felt badly let down by the statement. Standard 3% variance would still mean that 87 to 93 percent of supporters didn’t agree with the board’s stance, so the fans representatives should surely have voted accordingly.

If you wanted a decent slew of supporters, the best bet would be to poll them at Easter Road on a match day and then average that out against the supporter clubs and websites (if appropriate). They could have managed it with a reasonable turnaround, I reckon.